The proposed article “The Eve of the Scientific Revolution in the Field of Historiography” may, at first glance, seem to be a purely technical and as if nothing.
In fact, this raises the most important problem: how to spell history. Including ours, Russian history. And how it is written, very much depends. Not only the identity of the people and pride in the past, but also ... the present and the future of the people.
And if most of us are not historians, then we should at least clearly understand what the state of affairs in historical science is, if I may say so. And as countries unfriendly to us use our ignorance of the essence of things in this area.
We know that under a rolling stone, water does not flow! And our understanding of the state of affairs automatically corrects our behavior, our actions. It is the collective mind of a large number of people that makes politicians adapt to the mood of society.
The proposed article is voluminous, but, in our opinion, honest and interesting. And it is extremely important just for understanding, for choosing the right direction.
Historiography is now experiencing a very serious systemic crisis, the way out of which is the scientific revolution. It will be connected both with the new methodology and with the new instrument base, after which a new historiography will arise.
The concept of historiography
Historiography is a description of real history.
An essential component is that it does not act on small segments of historical time when participants in historical events are still alive, since they cannot take into account the whole range of opinions and attitudes; and any sample of them seems to the participants to be false, since it is not their aspect of the problem that can convey it.
However, as it moves away from historical events, it is historiography that comes into play, as a conscious selection or, on the contrary, a conscious silence on certain historical events.
Thus, it is possible to understand by historiography not just a description of history (something like a camera for it has not yet been invented), but the conscious alignment of a chain of historical events (and lacunae between them) into a complete historiographic work timed to a specific historical region.
At a very large distance from the point of modernity, it enters into the realm of "plausible reasoning" (the opponent of this concept calls them speculation) or some of the opinions entrenched in the people (the opponent of this concept calls them "myths").
The problem of objectivity of historiography
Historiography in all ages was a special social science, the entrance to which was deliberately restricted and allowed only to especially reliable people.
For to understand the present was very difficult, and any point of view on it can be refuted by counterexamples; as for the past, it should have been the basis on which a rational and quite naturally flowing future is erected, in spite of the many-sided and contradictory present.
The past becomes a beacon for a rational future, which every member of a given society should build.
It is this ideological component - to give a picture of his past that is worthy of a given people, and contradicts the objectivity of a given science.
Always in the rich past there can be facts that contradict the "general line" of the present.
Unfortunately, the historian is sometimes forced to stand on one of the extreme points of view.
If he is in the service of the state, he must reflect the state point of view and implement slogans aimed at increasing labor productivity; if he is an independent expert, he is tempted to go to the other extreme, and show the constant lag of real achievements from the planned ones.
The problem of the beginning of Russian history
No matter how the previous period is interpreted from the standpoint of the subsequent one, the problem of the beginning of history is always the same. And here, any nations were usually given no historical information.
Either it was a biblical story about the fact that God created Adam first, then Eve, and then, after being expelled from paradise, they had children, or vague legends about which people they came from.
In the 18th century in Europe, a certain standard was created for the creation of historiography, which prescribes starting with certain tribes (it is advisable to know their names) who lived in this territory, leading a very primitive way of life. This is a kind of prehistory.
And the story itself begins with the creation of the state, the acquisition of writing, and the mention of the first princes in later annals.
If some people did not have their own chronicles, then they looked for references to them in the annals of other nations. Hence chronicles and other narrative sources were built into a special class of historical documents, on the basis of which all historiography began to be built.
Of course, this was an important historical innovation, since previously such information about the beginning of the history of one or another people had to be drawn from oral folklore, and this source was soon recognized by historians as unreliable.
Written information provides advantages in many ways: they are compact, transportable, they can be rewritten in the required number of copies, and most importantly - they can be stored.
From this time on, the source becomes preferable to any research, because it gives a legal right to recognize to the ancients some historical event or fact. This was especially important for the historiography of this or that nation.
At the same time, since a written source acquires certain legal functions from which certain privileges can be recognized or, on the contrary, certain privileges are taken away, the question of the discovery, interpretation and storage of sources becomes very important.
The source is withdrawn from public use, it becomes possible to make some kind of corrective amendment into it, it can be reinterpreted or even replaced after some time, with modern technology such things are possible; and all this in this case will pass without witnesses.
Finally, an unnecessary source can simply be lost or lost by negligence, and then supporters of opposing historical views lose their evidence. So, the selection of the necessary and the removal of unnecessary sources is a necessary draft of the compiler of historiography.
As in other areas of national science, the selection of the necessary sources, screening or defaming unnecessary were carried out by our historiography by the beginning of the XIX century.
The consistency of the historical picture of the world
Naturally, it is highly desirable that the main milestones of the development of mankind be agreed between different national historiographers.
In fact, there was no such problem for the period of the history of the New Age. However, the farther from him back centuries, the more difficult it is to understand which event happened in which country earlier, and which later.
This reconciliation ended in the 17th century with the creation of a very rational system, according to which ancient Greece became the first civilized country on the world map, then ancient Rome.
In the 19th century, they were confronted with the history of Egypt and Mesopotamia, in the 20th century they added the Crete-Mycenaean (the same age as Egypt, but on the territory of later Greece), and the classical paradigm of world historiography emerged as such.
All other peoples that were part of the habitat of ancient Greek culture, supposedly appeared later and inherited their culture to varying degrees.
And Russia, allegedly, arises very late, and therefore did not have time to learn anything from this treasury. Ostensibly, Slavs appear in the 5th-6th centuries AD, and Russia and that later, in the 9th century, these tribes came (namely, the tribes, whereas civilized nations lived in Europe) from somewhere in Asia.
Prior to unification into states, these tribes lived partly in the fields, partly in the forests, partly in the swamps (glade, Drevlyane, Dregovichi).
This does not interfere with the classical picture of the world, since by this time antiquity had already ended, the circle of European powers was outlined, and the addition of the steppe inhabitants of the Scythians or the Rus did not in any way affect it.
The concept of paradigm was introduced by the historian and methodologist of science Thomas Kuhn.
According to his ideas, a paradigm is a set of scientific propositions shared by a given scientific community, regardless of how it agrees with the real state of things, that is, how true it is.
The concept itself is borrowed from linguistics, where it denotes the entire repertoire of changes in a word, for example, all the cases of a noun declension, or all faces, numbers and times of verb conjugations.
As we see, the concept of paradigm expresses not the objective, but the subjective and social side of scientific truth. At the same time, the paradigm is primary, and the scientific community is secondary.
In other words, anyone who shares this paradigm can only hope that it will be accepted into the scientific community, but anyone who does not share, without any pity, is expelled from it. A community adjusts to a paradigm, not a paradigm to a community.
With reference to history, this means that the history of Europe balanced across all national appetites, according to which, not Germans or Celts, are not Romance, and certainly not Slavic peoples, but somewhat abstract Copts and Sumerians for Europe (however, they did not give Europe cultural heritage) , and later the Latins and the Greeks became the basis and banner of European civilization, and was the first international paradigm of ancient history.
It is clear that if it were not for this, then the Germans would still prove that they are older than the Celts, and the French - the opposite. It would be better if some modern peoples, such as the Greeks, who have disappeared or do not pretend to anything, will be at the head of the historical process than the ancestors of one of the now-strong European powers.
This historical paradigm is open in the sense that any other nations can be added to it on the sidelines, which, however, will not touch the system itself or, as supporters of T. Kuhn say, its heuristics, its core. Additions only replenish the belt of protective hypotheses.
For example, it turns out that the Etruscans had a cultural influence on the Romans. Perfectly! But it does not at all mean that the beginning of European history should be transferred to the Etruscans.
You just need to act in the spirit of this paradigm: declare that they came from somewhere in Asia at about the same time as the Latins came (if Rome was founded in the VIII century BC, then the Etruscans, therefore, came to Europe no earlier this time), then to the heyday of Rome for not quite clear reasons, disappeared, leaving only a bright trace, but nothing more.
Opened in the twentieth century Kryto-Mycenae culture? Too great! And it can be included in the history of Europe, and even before the Greeks, since it is the same age as Egypt. But she did not have a clear impact on the Greeks, and therefore it can be considered as some interesting inlay, but no more.
Consequently, its people came from somewhere in Asia, and then, before classical Greece, as a civilization, disappeared, for example, as a result of the explosion of a volcano on the island of Santorini, which created a tsunami and destroyed the culture of the island of Crete.
So, in any case, Greece and Rome remain the cradle of European civilization, no inclusion of other nations will not change the current picture.
As for the Slavs or Russians, they are included in this picture in third roles: they appear, like the Balts, very late in the historical arena, not even in the early Middle Ages, and also from Asia, wild and uneducated, and then very long absorb the basics of civilization.
Some of the Slavs are part of the Ottoman Empire, some - as part of Austria-Hungary, also an empire.
The only purely Slavic empire is Russia, but it appears very late, and in the sense of culture, it enters the world arena only in the 19th century. And the terms “unwashed” and “lapotnaya” are applicable to it.
Karl Marx considered it the most typical country of feudalism, which had lagged behind the whole epoch from the typical country of capitalism - Great Britain.
These are the main features of the current paradigm of European historiography.
I repeat that it took shape over several centuries. It is supported by all the historians of the Old and New Worlds, including the Russian Academy of Sciences.
According to her, there can be no written language older than Egyptian or Sumerian (and which one is older, does not play a special role), and there can not be an influential European civilization older than Greco-Roman.
Everything else can be, if it, accordingly, is based on a powerful system of evidence. For example, letters that look like letters can be detected, but not as letters - please, this is acceptable even before the Bronze Age.
The ancient peoples of the Indo-European group, for example, the Tochars of Asia Minor, can be found, but without any influence on the formation of European culture. So, this paradigm does not prevent the clarification of history on secondary and tertiary issues.
Like any sacred knowledge, this paradigm is not advertised, that is, it cannot be found in ready-made form. But there are powerful prohibition systems. For example, in an attempt to read the Etruscan script, you can contact the Italian colleagues for help in finding materials.
But, as soon as the Italian colleagues understand that you are trying to read the Etruscan script on the basis of the Slavic languages, their interest in contacts with you will immediately dry up.
Just as if you wanted to explore any kind of writing system older than the Bronze Age. You will immediately become like a wolf who has entered a firing zone - and they will shoot you.
The problem of the scientific revolution
The same Thomas Kuhn introduced the concept of scientific revolution. According to this provision, all the facts that contradict the dominant paradigm, for the time being are declared “curious” and put in a “piggy bank of curiosities”.
At first glance, this is strange, since a fact is a reliably confirmed observation. But, as physicists joke, “if a fact does not fit into a theory, then so much the worse ... for a fact!”.
And this is understandable: the theory is in the public domain, several hundreds or thousands of researchers work within its framework, who receive salaries, fees for articles, funds for equipment and building maintenance, in other words, society bears certain costs for maintaining this theory.
As for some fact, it turns out to be known, as a rule, to a narrow circle of people who discovered it, or to historians of science, so that forgetting it, as it seems at first glance, does not become a significant loss to science. So the paradigm protects itself.
But such “curiosities” are accumulating more and more, and the dominant paradigm is already forced to somehow explain their existence.
At first, this is possible; in some cases they are considered “observation errors”, in others they are considered to be inaccurate interpretations, in the third they are inexplicable paradoxes, which, however, do not prevent science from living. Even at this stage no revolution takes place, although it is possible to call this stage an era of crisis.
The crisis ends with a group of recognized scientists imbued with the noble idea of eliminating all the curiosities that hinder science and (horror of horrors!) Shows the inability of the paradigm to understand them: the more accurately and more thoroughly scientists try to explain this anomaly, the paradigm failure becomes apparent.
Epigraphic picture of the world
The study of inscriptions on clothing finds engaged in a special discipline, epigraphy. Unfortunately, its role in archeology is not only small, but, one may say, insignificant.
Most often, an epigraphist can read some long quotation from the Bible, written on a gold vessel presented to a monarch, which is poorly readable by an ordinary person due to ignorance of many features of an ancient letter.
This adds almost nothing to the characterization of the vessel. Therefore, it is enough for a whole scientific research institute to have one regular epigraphist.
Much more important is the role of epigraphy in cases where the inscription is made in the font of another nation. Then the epigraphist can quite reliably make an attribution of the found archeological monument according to the inscription language.
If it is impossible to determine the language, then it is possible to determine at least the type of letter, which, of course, is much worse.
Thus, in Latin letters they write not only the peoples of Western Europe, but also the Slavs, in Arabic writing - the Turks, Persians, and also the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Germanic runes - both the Germans, the Finns and the Balts.
Therefore, it is important not only to determine the type of letter, but also to read the inscription. This solves not only the task of determining the language of the inscription, but also gives an understanding of the purpose of the subject.
And here comes the amazing thing. If we ignore the Latin and Cyrillic alphabet, then the inscriptions, for example, by Germanic or Turkic runes are mostly unreadable. Also, many Arabic inscriptions of Rus are not read.
Turning now to the epigraphic picture of the world, one can say the following: Latin, Greek, and Cyril inscriptions read quite well. However, unfortunately, they are low in content.
The situation is somewhat worse with the Semitic letters - Jewish, Arabic, Akkadian, Egyptian inscriptions. Not all is read here. Inscriptions Germanic runes (older, younger, Norwegian, Anglo-Saxon) also have a number of completely unreadable texts.
Among about six types of Turkic runes, only one is read - Orkhon-Yenisei. Etruscan inscriptions seem to be read, but to understand the content is almost impossible. With regard to the reading of the Venetian, reti, Thracian, Illyrian and other inscriptions in Europe, only the first steps are being taken.
Is decoding difficult? When Jean-François Champollion deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs in the first half of the 19th century, his scientific feat seemed like a miracle.
Nowadays there is a special science about encryption and decryption - cryptography. There are dozens of military research institutes around the world dealing with encryption and decryption problems.
It would seem that if they are connected to the problems of unreadability or non-decipherment of some texts, then the problems will be solved in a couple of decades. However, this did not happen, although I suspect that this kind of work has been done in a number of countries.
Moreover, in the 19th century, when no scientific research institute of cryptography existed yet, much more scripts were deciphered than in the 20th century.
It is very difficult to get rid of the idea that the existence of a very small group of professional epigraphists in the world, the lack of departments for their preparation, the publication of the results of their activities in secondary scientific works, and their lack of interest in cooperating with military decoders are all links in one chain: fear to find a single written language and a single language of Europe.
In other words, epigraphists are not so much analysts as hours, not allowing enthusiasts to the storerooms of world history.
But what scares such a discovery? But only in one way: it will immediately destroy the whole historiography of Europe (and, consequently, of the whole world), so stubbornly and slowly composed on the basis of specially selected and edited narrative sources.
It will be a tornado, sweeping away all the obstacles erected in its path.
The beginning of the scientific revolution in historiography
The scientific revolution in historiography has already begun, although its first phases have gone unnoticed by society.
Mathematics begins where you can calculate something, and in historiography it is a chronology.
The first suspected something terrible in the chronology of Sir Isaac Newton. However, in his time, such works were considered to be the vagaries of genius and did not attach importance to them.
In Russia, Nikolai Morozov, a member of the chronology, worked on chronology, who, analyzing many sources, came to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was born and lived much later than the generally accepted period, approximately 400 years.
And, although its multivolume edition saw the light after the revolution, historical science did not accept it; she didn't even notice him.
The impact of Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of the Department of Statistical Mathematics of Moscow State University, turned out to be much stronger.
As is known, the theory of probability and the statistical approach today permeate not only physics, they have penetrated into all natural sciences and are very well established in economics, psychology, and linguistics.
But nothing good happened to historiography - attempts to apply statistical methods there led to a strange result: the events calculated by these methods should have happened at a completely different time than the historiography asserts.
Can it happen in science that the use of a method leads everywhere to a proper result, but in no one field does it? I suppose that it can, if this area really has some great features.
Say, you can drive a car well along a smooth road, but if you encounter large pits - or, on the contrary, high obstacles, the car will not pass through them.
At one time, neo-Kantian philosophers tried to prove that while all other sciences were studying something repetitive, historiography, on the contrary, was studying something single, isolated in time.
However, they did not succeed in proving such a strange assumption. And if so, it is quite possible to apply both probability theory and mathematical statistics to historiography.
A.T. Fomenko and attached. And I got a curious conclusion: the last 300 years and chronologies, and the description of events in history as a whole can be trusted. But in earlier periods - no longer possible. There are a lot of things mixed up both in space and in time.
One of his books is called: "Antiquity is the Middle Ages." In other words, what we now call antiquity was created in the late Middle Ages, or in the Renaissance.
But if this confusion arose from the difficulties of creating chronology, or from ignorance of some episodes of world history, it would be understandable, and it would be easy to overcome, putting everything in its place.
But, as it turned out, the confusion arose not because of that, but because of the desire of Western Europe to conceal the existence in relatively recent times of a world state with the Russian language and culture, which this researcher called the “Empire”.
So, any attempt to unravel the intricacies of historiography inevitably push the existence of Russian civilization to the surface.
Further, he moved away from a purely mathematical approach, understandable only to a small group of specialists.
He showed that there is a mass of discrepancies between the data of historiography and the presence of churches, their decorations, characters in them, the content of icons, paintings, literary works, etc., which show that these works of art were created at a completely different time.
For example, he publishes a photograph of the painting, in which the ancient Roman poet Virgil is depicted in glasses, although glasses were invented only in the Middle Ages and are unknown in antiquity.
Blind Homer describes in detail the Achilles' shield as if it sees him, although he is blind, and they have been separated for at least three centuries. And despite the fact that the warriors of antiquity were not interested in the details of the decoration of the shield - for them its strength was more important. And there are a great many such absurdities.
The beginning of the scientific revolution in epigraphy
Detection of inconsistencies and historical lacunae is a serious blow to modern historiography, but not fatal.
Much more dangerous is the discovery of the most ancient Slavic writing, the runitsa. And again, not the detection itself, but the material obtained with its help. Indeed, the value of writing can be likened to the value of the most powerful means of transmitting information.
As we have seen, archaeologists have been able for decades and even centuries to solve the problem of the ethnic affiliation of a particular culture.
The presence of written remarks on archaeological finds allows not only to attribute the ethnicity of the find, but also to understand the contents of the thing, and often its purpose. But it turns out to be completely different from what historians have suggested.
Take, for example, a private question - the problem of the Russian Kaganate. It is one thing to lead a controversy over the centuries on the question of which Russians were in this kaganate: Slavs or some others, for example, Alans or Khazars.
Kaganat, according to modern data, was a couple of centuries older than Kievan Rus. He even minted his coins with Arabic script.
And it is completely different - to read on a coin, stylized under the Arabic ligature, the inscription in Russian, executed by the runice: “Altyn is a gold Russian coin. Russian Kaganate Moscow.
With this one inscription, all questions are removed: the Russians from the Kaganate spoke Russian, and their capital was the city of Moscow, even if that city was located in a different place than the current Moscow. But Russia in the form of the Russian Khaganate existed before Kievan Rus.
An even stronger blow is delivered by the ability to read Etruscan inscriptions, both in their Etruscan and in their Russian parts.
From these inscriptions it follows that Moscow existed not only before Rome, but it was by her order that the Etruscans erected this city, calling it in the spirit of Russian traditions (for example, Vladimir - “own the world”) the World.
Another thing is that the word Peace, written in the Russian tradition, according to the Etruscan rules, should be read in the opposite direction, and it began to be read like Rome.
In Rome, created by the Etruscans, for whom the native language was Russian, and a kind of soldier slang - the Etruscan language - therefore, the Russian language sounded for a long time. And only much later, when Latins began to move to Rome, they, speaking Russian, distorted it, adapting it to their phonetics and grammar.
But this fact does not in any way cancel the completely different historiographical paradigm arising from this: the majority of European nations came to Russia, which occupied the whole of Northern Eurasia, and learned from her both Russian culture and the Russian language.
So, the history of Europe, the history of Northern Eurasia, and the history of the world should begin with the history of the Russian people, from its language and culture. Then the Semites came to us, and then - the Hellenes, Celts, Latins, Germans, Balts, etc.
Such will be the paradigm of world development after the scientific revolution in the field of epigraphy and historiography is accomplished.
But can the scientific revolution stop?
No, it can not.
Already we have the opportunity to read and understand the inscriptions of the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, which tell us such details that are not preserved in any ancient source.
Consequently, even nowadays, the runitsa, which has been deciphered by the Russian alphabet, and in a special way inscribed in protokrillic drawings, give the new paradigm such facts that the classical paradigm does not know.
But the main thing is not in particular, but in a different understanding of the general course of the historical process. Now we understand the purpose of both individual sacred stones and colossal megalithic structures such as Stonehenge.
Ancient stones and ancient shrines begin to open everywhere - and classical archeology did not understand the purpose of their construction.
From the standpoint of the new paradigm, a lot of information can be obtained when analyzing an ordinary craft product - its name (in Russian), the surname (and sometimes the name and patronymic) of the master, the city and the sacred name of the area. From here it is possible to understand, local this product, or imported.
In short, written information can now be taken from any ancient thing, and not from extremely rare items, as classical epigraphy suggests.
Naturally, now very many archaeological cultures will reveal to us the names of their ethnic groups; in other cases, it turns out that a new culture simply means a new fashion or a priority of new values in the old ethnos. And until now, the “silent” archeological culture suddenly speaks to people in very clear Russian words.
Will the results of the scientific revolution recognize the West?
Of course, recognizes.
Once the United States in the space race with the USSR tried to beat our country by any indicator. However, now we have found that the cooperation regime is much more beneficial for both countries. The same with historiography.
If the United States destroyed at one time the Indians and brought slaves from Africa, then this must be admitted, although this is not very pleasant. However, without these unpleasant facts, the history of this country turns out to be incomprehensible.
Similarly, if Europe begins to discover the traces of Russian civilization and learns to read Russian texts on archaeological monuments, it will learn many details of its own history - you can’t do anything with the Russian origin of its culture, it was, it was.
With modern methods of communication, neither the fact nor the silence of the fact of Russian priority with all desire can not be defamed.
At one time, the United States recognized the fact of its defeat in the Vietnam War, for some time their leadership was accustomed to this unpleasant fact, and, realizing it, moved on.
Europe, realizing the absurdity of rejection of all traces of Russian culture in its present territory, will understand that it is also a certain percentage - Russian, and, having survived this fact, it will be able to develop its historiography to new heights.
The bitter truth is better than centuries-old lies - especially now that the results of archaeological excavations and the inscriptions on them cannot be concealed. The period of falsification of historical documents and the hiding of the originals of the monastic special protection is over.
Already found and published archaeological material in its totality contains so much historical information that covers the lacunae caused by the removal from public use of authentic monuments.
And this open information can be obtained today by any Internet user who knows how to read Russian Ruitsa and protokirillitsu. This eliminates the need to classify originals.
According to the predictions of many soothsayers, Russia at the end of the 21st century should come out on top in the world in terms of its main indicators. It is hoped that the transition to a new paradigm of the world historical process.
If we are talking about the movement towards globalization, then Russia is just a living and living remnant of world culture, when, at least in Northern Eurasia from Britain to Alaska, people spoke Russian, wrote the Mokos and Rod genes and worshiped Russian gods.
And on this recognition, the scientific revolution in the field of historiography, archeology and epigraphy will end, giving rise to a completely different understanding of the development of world civilization.